THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.583 of 2008 25-11-2014 BETWEEN:
Donta Sivaiah AND …..Appellant State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.583 of 2008 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the sole accused challenging the judgment dated 10.04.2008 passed by IX Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur in S.C.No.377 of 2007, whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years.
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
The accused is the husband of the deceased-Dontha Balamma. P.W.4 and L.W.7 are the parents; P.W.1 is the mother-in-law and P.W.2 is the sister-in- law of the deceased. The deceased and accused are close relatives. About six years prior to the incident, the marriage of the deceased was performed with accused at the house of accused by giving cash of Rs.10,000/- and one gold ring to the accused towards dowry with a promise to give half an acre of land to the deceased. After the marriage, the deceased joined the company of the accused and led marital life and was blessed with one male child. Since the marriage, the accused is having dissatisfaction with the dowry given to him and on that account, he used to subject the deceased to cruelty by forcing her to dispose of the land in order to get the amount and due to unbearable harassment of the accused, about three years prior to the incident, the deceased went to her parents’ house with her son and residing with her parents. Later, the deceased filed a maintenance case and the same was allowed, but the accused failed to pay the maintenance amount. While so, about six months prior to the incident, in connection with the marriage of younger brother-in-law of deceased, the village elders i.e. P.Ws.6 and 10 held counseling in the presence of parents of the deceased at their house wherein the accused agreed to all the conditions set by elders. Later, the deceased was brought to the house of the accused and while she was leading marital life, the accused again subjected her to cruelty suspecting her character and also demanding her for more dowry. Due to unbearable harassment of the accused for dowry amount and suspicion over her character, the deceased got disgusted with her life and to put an end to her life, poured kerosene on her body on 27.1.2007 at 10.00 a.m. and set fire to herself and came out raising cries with flames. Then on hearing her cries, mother-in-law, sister-in-law of deceased and other neighbours i.e. P.Ws.3,7 and 14 rushed to her, put off the flames by covering with gunny bags. P.W.1- mother-in-law shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Narasaraopet with the assistance of P.W.3 and admitted her in the hospital. On receipt of requisition from P.W.17-doctor, P.W.13-Head Constable visited the hospital and recorded the statement of deceased and forwarded the same P.W.15- Sub-Inspector of Police, Rompicherla Police Station on point of jurisdiction. On 28.1.2007 P.W.15 received the said statement, registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2007 under Sections 323 and 498-A IPC and issued F.I.R. and took up investigation. He visited the Hospital, secured the presence of witnesses, examined and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, seized kerosene tin under the cover of observation report. On 10.2.2007 while undergoing treatment at 7.30 a.m., the deceased succumbed to injuries at the hospital and on receipt of death intimation from the doctor-P.W.17, at about 4.00 p.m., P.W.15 altered the section of law and issued the alter F.I.R. under Section 304-B IPC. He sent the requisition to P.W.12-Mandal Executive Magistrate, Rompicherla for conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased. ON 11.2.2007, P.W.16-Officer on Special Duty took up further investigation, visited the Hospital, got photographed the body of the deceased through L.W.16. The Mandal Revenue Officer-P.W.12 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators-P.W.11 and others, prepared inquest report attested by the said mediators, examined the parents of deceased and recorded their statements and sent the body to the doctor-
P.W.17 for post-mortem examination. P.W.17 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.21 opining that the deceased would appear to have died of septicemia shock as a result of burns. On 18.3.2007 at 5.00 p.m. P.W.15 apprehended the accused at his house and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. Later, after completion of investigation, P.W.18-Sub-Divisional Police Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.21 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 4. On behalf of defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
After evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material brought on record.
Except P.W.4-father and P.Ws.5 and 10-uncles of the deceased, all the material witnesses turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. The entire reading of the evidence does not disclose an offence under Section 304-B IPC. Even though Ex.P.12-dying declaration of the deceased recorded by P.W.13-Head Constable is admitted, it does not specifically disclose cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry. In the absence of any demand of dowry and harassment in connection with the said demand, an offence under Section 304-B IPC does not attract. However, the dying declaration of deceased Ex.P.12 speaks in volumes regarding the cruelty meted out by the deceased in the hands of the appellant herein, which necessitated her to commit suicide. Hence, this Court is of the view that the offence would fall under Section 498-A IPC under the second limb. Therefore, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 498-A IPC.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant for the offence under Section 304-B IPC is hereby modified to the one under Section 498-A IPC and the sentence of imprisonment is modified to the period already undergone by the appellant.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 25.11.2014 Tsr